Duran-Majano

facts as their asylum and withholding of removal claims. The IJ permissibly

2 Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s alternative findings that Petitioners did not establish past persecution. However, we need not specifically address the IJ’s alternative findings, because failure to establish a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive to their past persecution claim.

23-4083 concluded that the unrealized threats did not reach the level of torture.3 See

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)

(“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in [their country of

origin] is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT]

standard.”). Moreover, the record supports the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioners did

not establish that the government would acquiesce in torture. The IJ explained that

the Salvadoran law prohibits torture and that the government would enforce these

laws, even though they may not be done effectively. Thus, without additional

evidence that the government would acquiesce, the fact that the government is not

effective at controlling gangs does not establish…